SAN MATEO COUNTY, CA. For Immediate Release. By Cody Salfen. Between January and April 1976, five women were sexually assaulted and murdered in San Mateo County, California. To date, no arrests have been made and each of the cases remains unsolved. Earlier this year, a potential break in the case came when law enforcement officials announced a link between these five killings and a sixth killing in Reno, Nevada. The Reno killing occurred during the same time period as the San Mateo County killings – in 1976. The body of a 19-year-old college student by the name of Michelle Mitchell was discovered in February of 1976 in a garage in Reno. Investigators pieced together that Mitchell’s vehicle broke down near a busy Reno intersection near the location where her body was subsequently discovered. An unknown individual in a VW Bug, possibly the killer, came to Mitchell’s assistance and that’s the last time Mitchell was seen alive.

The link between the San Mateo County killings and the Reno killing? A cigarette butt located under the body of Michelle Mitchell – the Reno victim. DNA located on the cigarette butt matched that of DNA located in two of the San Mateo County killings. And, authorities allege the DNA of Oregon prison inmate Rodney Halbower matches the DNA located in both Reno and San Mateo County.

The San Mateo County victims include Veronica “Ronnie” Cascio – a young adult last seen in January of 1976 in Pacifica. Cascio’s body was subsequently located at the Sharp Park Golf Course in San Mateo County. The next victim – Tanya Blackwell. A 14-year-old that disappeared from the area near her Pacifica, CA residence when, according to family members, she left the residence on foot headed to a local 7-11. Blackwell’s body was discovered in June of 1976 in Pacifica. The third victim – Paula Baxter. A 17-year-old last seen in the area of Capuchino High School in San Bruno, CA on February 4, 1976 – her body located the following day near the Latter Day Saints Church in San Bruno. The fourth victim – a 26-year-old. Carol Lee Booth – last seen near a bus stop in South San Francisco on March 15, 1976. Her body was not recovered until May of 1976 – located in South San Francisco. The fifth San Mateo County victim – a 19-year-old named Denise Lampe. Lampe was last seen near the Serramonte Mall in Daly City. Lampe’s body was discovered that same day, inside of her Ford Mustang, which was parked at the mall.

Pictured above is the inmate profile for Rodney Halbower - retrieved from the Oregon Department of Corrections inmate database. Halbower is currently incarcerated at the Oregon State Penitentary for various criminal convictions, which are believed to be unrelated to the Gypsy Hill Killings. Earlier this week, the FBI named Halbower a "person of interest" in the still unsolved "Gypsy Hill" murders - five killings which occurred over a four month span in 1976 in San Mateo County.

The latest news - this week, the FBI named 66 year-old Oregon State Penitentiary inmate Rodney Halbower a "person of interest." The FBI's apparent basis for the claims is the DNA connection between Halbower, a number of the San Mateo killings, and the single Reno killing. A check of the Oregon Department of Corrections inmate database revealed that Halbower is currently incarcerated at the Oregon State Penitentary - serving time on various criminal convictions, believed to be unrelated to the Gypsy Hill killings. According to Department of Corrections records, the convictions for which Halbower is currently incarcerated include attempted murder, assault, and robbery. Recently, Halbower was transferred from the Nevada prison system to the Oregon prison system. As a part of the transfer, Halbower was required to submit a DNA sample. Halbower's DNA apparently was a match to the DNA associated with the Reno and Gypsy Hill killings.

This article was authored by Cody Salfen. ABOUT THE AUTHOR. Cody Salfen is a California licensed private investigator with a wide array of civil and criminal investigative experience in the public and private sectors. Cody currently operates Cody S Investigations (www.CodySInvestigations.com) – A California Private Investigation and Private Detective Agency. Cody has been featured in various local and national news stories for his work on civil and criminal investigations. Cody has consulted with NBC Bay Area, Dateline NBC, ABC 7 News, and has been featured on NBC's National News (NBCNews.com) for his expertise relating to criminal investigations - oftentimes consulting on various news stories relating to high profile criminal investigations in California. In addition to managing a diverse caseload of private investigation and related matters, Cody serves as a "Subject Matter Expert" for the State of California on the topic of private investigations. In this role, Cody works as a consultant, assisting the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and Investigative Services in conducting various occupational analyses relating to the private investigation industry. Cody is a court appointed contract criminal investigator in both the County of Marin and the County of Santa Clara - working on criminal cases for each county's indigent defense panel. Cody is an active member of the California Association of Licensed Investigators, the Professional Investigators Association of California, the California Defense Investigators Association, the National Council of Investigation and Security Services, and the World Association of Detectives. In addition, Cody founded and operates Cody S & Associates, Inc. (www.CSI-Legal-Services.com) a CA Department of Consumer Affairs security training, firearms training, security consulting, CA Dept. of Justice firearm safety certification provider, and CA Dept. of Justice and FBI approved Live Scan Fingerprinting Service provider.To speak with a member of the Cody S Investigations private investigation team, you can call the Cody S Investigations San Francisco private detective office at (415) 932-9278 or (408) 313-0109. Cody S Investigations provides investigative services throughout the State of California, including a wide array of private investigation services in the greater San Francisco bay area. This includes handling various investigative matters relating to criminal investigations for offenses ranging from minor low-level misdemeanor offenses to serious offenses such as murder.

DISCLAIMER: All materials, content and posts contained on this website are the intellectual property of Cody S Investigations and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or displayed without the express written permission of Cody S Investigations. Cody S Investigations does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, timeliness, or appropriateness of the information contained in any posting. Further, Cody S Investigations disclaims any responsibility for content errors, omissions, or infringing material and disclaims any responsibility associated with relying on the information provided on this website. Cody S Investigations is NOT a law firm and therefore cannot provide legal advice. As such, any information contained herein is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. It is merely an opinion.

MARIN COUNTY, CA. For Immediate Release. By Cody Salfen. Actor and Comedian Robin Williams has died. Marin County Sheriff’s Office Deputies were dispatched to Williams’ residence in unincorporated Marin County, California at approximately 11:55 AM this afternoon. Upon arrival at the scene, first responders discovered the lifeless body of Robin Williams – apparently dead as a result of suicide by hanging. Cody S Investigations has obtained the audio recording from the Marin County Fire Department’s dispatch, which portrays fire and medic personnel being dispatched to Williams’ Marin County residence on the report of an attempted suicide by hanging. Upon arrival, Marin County emergency responders notified dispatch that the person (Williams) was deceased.

REST IN PEACE ROBIN WILLIAMS
(1951 – 2014)

By Cody Salfen. Cody Salfen is a California licensed private investigator and currently owns an operates Cody S Investigations (www.CodySInvestigations.com) – A California Private Investigation and Private Detective Agency. Visit the official Cody S Investigations website at www.CodySInvestigations.com or www.CodyPI.com. Alternatively, to speak with a member of the Cody S Investigations private investigation staff, you can call the Cody S Investigations San Francisco private detective staff at (415) 932.9278 or (408) 313.0109. Cody S Investigations provides a wide array of private investigation services in San Francisco, the surrounding areas, and investigative services throughout the State of California. This includes death investigations, missing persons investigations, criminal investigations, and more.

DISCLAIMER: All materials, content and posts contained on this website are the intellectual property of Cody S Investigations and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or displayed without the express written permission of Cody S Investigations. Cody S Investigations does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, timeliness, or appropriateness of the information contained in any posting. Further, Cody S Investigations disclaims any responsibility for content errors, omissions, or infringing material and disclaims any responsibility associated with relying on the information provided on this website. Cody S Investigations is NOT a law firm and therefore cannot provide legal advice. As such, any information contained herein is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. It is merely an opinion.

SANTA CRUZ, CA. For Immediate Release. By Cody Salfen. A high-level Google engineer and executive is dead. A 26-year-old known prostitute is in custody in Santa Cruz – held on $1.5 million bail for several charges, including manslaughter. Authorities alleged they have video footage of the interaction between Alix Tichelman, the prostitute, and Forrest Timothy Hayes, the late Google engineer, in the moments before, during, and just after the death of Hayes on his yacht in the Santa Cruz Harbor. The surveillance footage from the yacht allegedly shows Tichelman injecting Hayes with heroin and Hayes losing consciousness shortly thereafter. From there, Tichelman steps over Hayes’ unconscious body, finishes off a glass of wine, and leaves. Apparently Hayes, a married man and father of five, had an ongoing “pay for sex” relationship with Tichelman.

Booking photo of Alix Tichelman – captured when booked into the Santa Cruz County Jail

**WARNING** Some of the photos and posts referenced in this article contain graphic subject matter that is not suitable for children and some people may find the photos and posts offensive.** Cody S Investigations has obtained various photographs and Facebook posts of and by Tichelman. Some of the Facebook posts depict a person with potentially homicidal thoughts.

On June 28, 2014, Alix Catherine Tichelman writes: “It’s really nice to talk with someone about killing sprees and murdering people in cold blood…and they love it too. No judgment. Yay! Fuck all of that positivity bullshit. Take a look around you. Life is hard and then you die.”

(Facebook post from “Alix Catherine Tichelman” on June 24, 2014)

On July 1, 2014, Alix Catherine Tichelman references that she has a concealed weapons permit in the State of Georgia:

(Facebook post from “Alix Catherine Tichelman” on July 1, 2014)

ALIX TICHELMAN’S FACEBOOK PROFILE

PHOTOS OF ALIX TICHELMAN

A woman police describe as a high-end prostitute has been arrested on suspicion of murder after allegedly injecting heroin into a tech executive on his yacht in Santa Cruz and leaving him to die when he overdosed. The suspect, Alix Catherine Tichelman, was charged with seven crimes, including manslaughter, at the Santa Cruz County Court on Wednesday.

Tichelman’s public defender refused comment. Her bail has been set at $1.5 million and she will wait for a week before entering plea.

By Cody Salfen. Cody Salfen is a California licensed private investigator and currently owns an operates Cody S Investigations (www.CodySInvestigations.com) – A California Private Investigation and Private Detective Agency. Visit the official Cody S Investigations website at www.CodySInvestigations.com or www.CodyPI.com. Alternatively, to speak with a member of the Cody S Investigations private investigation staff, you can call the Cody S Investigations San Francisco private detective staff at (415) 932.9278 or (408) 313.0109. Cody S Investigations provides a wide array of private investigation services in San Francisco, the surrounding areas, and investigative services throughout the State of California. This includes wrongful death investigations, criminal investigations, missing persons investigations, human trafficking investigations, prostitution related investigations, and more.

DISCLAIMER: All materials, content and posts contained on this website are the intellectual property of Cody S Investigations and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or displayed without the express written permission of Cody S Investigations. Cody S Investigations does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, timeliness, or appropriateness of the information contained in any posting. Further, Cody S Investigations disclaims any responsibility for content errors, omissions, or infringing material and disclaims any responsibility associated with relying on the information provided on this website. Cody S Investigations is NOT a law firm and therefore cannot provide legal advice. As such, any information contained herein is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. It is merely an opinion.

By Cody Salfen. One of the first blog posts I wrote addressed whether a person can conduct a background check on themselves. The simple answer is (and continues to be) YES! This post elaborates on this topic and provides a clearer set of instructions for the person that seeks to check their own criminal history. The few relatively simple steps outlined in this post provide amongst the most streamlined, accurate, and efficient method for conducting a background check on yourself.

In this post, I will provide a streamlined explanation of the specific process by which a person can conduct a background check on themselves (for their criminal history) through the California Department of Justice criminal history database and the Federal Bureau of Investigation/FBI criminal history database. Note that these two methods only apply to a person checking their own background. These methods do NOT apply to the scenario where a third party is checking the background of another person.

Clients and potential clients routinely ask about checking their own background to see what’s there (arrests, convictions, etc). The reasons clients request this information vary, but the request is usually related to a job application (the client wants to know what exactly will appear when an employer conducts a background check/they want to know what they should or should not disclose during the background process). I’m not an attorney and cannot provide legal advice, but if I had some sort of arrest or conviction history in my background, I would disclose any and all criminal history when requested to do so. Employers are oftentimes understanding of some criminal history, but employers are generally much less understanding of an applicant that lies about their criminal history. So, my personal policy is that honesty is the best policy. Again, this is what I would do and this may or may not be the best course of action in any given situation.

The FBI maintains a database of state and federal criminal history information pertaining to arrests, convictions, and other law enforcement contact information. You may be able to request some or all of this information (about yourself) directly from the FBI.

My next piece of advice – don’t waste your time paying a private online database service for a copy of your “criminal history” check or a background check. Websites like Intellius, Peoplesmart, USsearch and a handful of other commercial data provides may have portions of your criminal history background information, but that information is NOT the information employers will look at when they conduct a pre-employment background check. The private databases oftentimes have fragmented, outdated, or flat out false/incorrect information – especially if you have a common name. It’s a waste of money and time to pay the $25 to $100 for the private databse searches, which will probably leave you with a false sense or panic or comfort. If you truly want to complete probably the most effective method of checking your criminal history, follow these steps.

Now, for the fun stuff. In California at least, if a person wants to know what is in their background, the most comprehensive method is to check the two government databases that contain the majority of arrest, conviction, and related criminal history data. The two government agencies that maintain these databases are the California Department of Justice (NOT the United States Department of Justice) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

There are two processes one should adhere to in conducting a criminal background check on themselves. This doesn’t require the assistance of a private investigator or an attorney, but a competent investigator and/or a competent attorney can help you through the process. Here are links to the instructions for complete the two searches:

The state level check/the California Dept. of Justice check is accomplished by digital/live scan fingerprinting. The second/FBI check is accomplished by having your fingerprints taken the “old-fashioned” or “wet” way (ink fingerprint cards), then you/the person requesting your own background information, must adhere to the process on the FBI website for submitting the card and the appropriate fee to the FBI.

Completing BOTH of these searches is the most comprehensive way for a person to request their own criminal history. The individual must have the California/DOJ prints taken via live scan fingerprinting (at a CA Dept. of Justice authorized live scan facility).

The California Department of Justice maintains various criminal history information regarding arrests, convictions, and law enforcement contacts with individuals. The majority of this information is collected from individual law enforcement agencies and courts within California.

Some live scan facility operators can also do the “wet” fingerprints (for the federal check) when the person comes in for the digital (live scan) fingerprinting (typically for an additional fee). You will need to call around to various live scan facilities in your area (http://ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/publications/contact.php) and find a facility that does both live scan (for the DOJ portion) and “wet”/hard-copy fingerprints (for the FBI check). Make sure you ask the live scan operator what you need to bring in with you to your fingerprinting appointement (forms, paperwork, ID, etc.). You will need to make sure you bring in the appropriate “Request for Live Scan” form to the live scan fingerprinting facility and you must also bring in the fingerprint card for the FBI check. These are rarely provided by the live scan operator.

From there, the digital/live scan prints are transmitted to the CA DOJ and the DOJ will in turn mail the results to the individual (the turnaround time is usually about a month).

For the federal check, after the applicant has the completed hard copy fingerprint cards, the applicant needs to adhere to the processes outlined on the FBI website (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks) for properly submitting the request to the FBI. Once you have properly submitted the request to the FBI, they will mail you the results (the turnaround time is usually about a month).

This is a process that can easily be completed on your own, but if you are confused with the process and would like to hire us to walk you through each step of the process, please call: 1.800.488.7186. We are more than happy to assist paying clients through the process, but if you would like free advice, this article is all you get! We will not provide you with free advice or assistance beyond that which is contained in this article. Until next time, stay safe and remember that honesty is the best policy.

The article was written in whole by Cody Salfen. Cody Salfen is a California licensed private investigator and currently owns an operates Cody S Investigations (www.CodySInvestigations.com) – A California Private Investigation and Private Detective Agency. Cody is a also a California Department of Justice certified fingerprint roller and an FBI and DOJ authorized live scan fingerprint provider. Visit the official Cody S Investigations website at www.CodySInvestigations.com or www.CodyPI.com. To speak with a member of the Cody S Investigations private investigation staff, call the Cody S Investigations San Francisco private detective staff at (415) 932.9278 or (408) 313.0109. Cody S Investigations provides a wide array of private investigation services in San Francisco, the surrounding areas, and investigative services throughout the State of California. This includes accident investigation services, accident reconstruction investigations, personal injury investigations, traffic collision investigations, insurance investigations, criminal investigations, wrongful death investigations, and various other civil and criminal investigations.

DISCLAIMER: All materials, content and posts contained on this website are the intellectual property of Cody S Investigations and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or displayed without the express written permission of Cody S Investigations. Cody S Investigations does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, timeliness, or appropriateness of the information contained in any posting. Further, Cody S Investigations disclaims any responsibility for content errors, omissions, or infringing material and disclaims any responsibility associated with relying on the information provided on this website. Cody S Investigations is NOT a law firm and therefore cannot provide legal advice. As such, any information contained herein is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. It is merely an opinion.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA. By Cody Salfen. “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” These words were spoken by John Adams – a founding father and the Second President of the United States of America – and simply but eloquently provide an accurate description of the role of a public official, the role of government and the role of the public in implementing change where government officials neglect their duties and/or engage in misconduct. There are public officials that make it clear change is needed. Whether this comes in the explicit form of a government official advocating change or the implicit form by which a government official deceives the public through repeated instances of equal protection violations and misconduct, in either instance, the people are the mechanism by which change is effectuated.

I am a true believer that politics are a necessary evil. But, I too believe that politics must be left second to the actual role of a public official. I am not a politician. This post is not about politics. This post is about integrity, the need for change, and the ability of the local community (Santa Clara County) to effectuate change by ousting a public official that has repeatedly disregarded her duty to act with integrity in a manner that best serves the needs of the people. And, in doing so, she has lost the confidence of the people – the people within her own department, fellow law enforcement organizations, and the general public – the latter category of which I belong.

Specifically, in light of the current race for the position of Sheriff of Santa Clara County and in light my personal experience with the floundering integrity of current Sheriff Laurie Smith, I decided to share my direct experience in dealing with Sheriff Laurie Smith.

Regardless of the severity of a lie or the surrounding circumstances, when a public official lies to the general public or to anyone, the mere fact that he/she lied hinders and oftentimes eliminates the public’s ability to confide in that official’s ability to truthfully and in good faith carry out his/her duties as a public official. Sheriff Laurie Smith lied to me. It wasn’t a massive lie. Laurie Smith’s lie doesn’t rise to the level of a civil rights violation. But, at the end of the day, Laurie Smith lied. And in doing so, proved to me she is unfit to continue to assume the role of the Sheriff of Santa Clara County.

This lie prompted me to conduct research into the current state of affairs of the Sheriff’s Office, into Laurie Smith’s tenure as the highest ranking official within the Sheriff’s Office, and led to my discovery of the countless instances of arbitrary and unequal enforcement of policies and procedures amongst the personnel within the Sheriff’s Office that are far more severe than the lie Sheriff Laurie Smith afforded to me and her similar treatment towards the general public in various capacities.

Above all, Laurie Smith has shaped her career in a manner where she has put her duty as a law enforcement officer second to her a career as a politician. This is an unacceptable practice.

A law enforcement officer plays a crucial role. A chief law enforcement officer plays an even more crucial role. One of the numbered integral roles of assuming a chief law enforcement officer position involves acting as a face for a department and acting as a representative the public can see, trust, and confide in. I watch the news on a regular basis and in doing so, I see various police chiefs and other law enforcement officials routinely engaging in press conferences and other public exchanges of information in uniform – acting as a representative of their agency and a representative of public trust.

For example, in December 2013, the City of San Jose selected Larry Esquivel as the Chief of Police (of San Jose). Even in the short time Esquivel has spent as Chief of Police in San Jose (close to six months), without much effort, when I try to think of his appearance, a clear picture of Chief Esquivel comes to mind – a Hispanic male adult with a flat-top haircut, wearing a San Jose Police Department uniform, which bears the chief stars along each collar. Why? Because in only five months as Chief, Esquivel has rarely been seen out of uniform and has taken every opportunity to engage the public in uniform, representing the department he leads - professionally and with apparent honor.

In contrast, despite the fact that Laurie Smith has held the office of Sheriff in Santa Clara County for over 16 years (a length of time over 30-times longer than Chief Esquivel’s time as Chief of Police), prior to the latest election, only after I searched the web in the past few months did I have any idea as to Sheriff Laurie Smith’s appearance. Further, a simple “Google Image Search” of the term “Sheriff Laurie Smith” provides only one image where Sheriff Smith is actually wearing a uniform (and the image of Smith in uniform is the posed/formal department photograph that was clearly taken some time ago). On the rare occasion that Sheriff Smith engages the public via a press conference or at a community function, I was unable to find a single instance where she appeared in uniform. Although it may seem trivial or petty that Laurie Smith is rarely seen in uniform or rarely seen in the news, it is far from trivial. A uniform exists for a reason and when the head of a public law enforcement agency that requires its underlings to wear uniforms in the execution of their official duties fails to do the same in her execution of her duties as Sheriff, this sends a “do as I say and not as a do” message.

This post will cover a factual description of a chain of events that led to my decision to not only write this post, but led to my decision to pro-actively encourage anyone and everyone that is eligible to vote in Santa Clara County to do their part in making the County of Santa Clara safer, to do their part in restoring integrity to the upper-management of the Sheriff’s Office, and to do their part in ensuring that Santa Clara County’s position of top cop (Sheriff) is assumed by someone that leads by example and not by intimidation.

Further, the action I request of the people of Santa Clara County comes in the form of me requesting your vote for Kevin Jensen and in doing so, removing an untrustworthy public official (current Sheriff Laurie Smith) from office. Further, in doing so, the people will be voting for the candidate with more integrity, the candidate that actually worked through the ranks of the Sheriff’s Office, the candidate sees the value in working with personnel and subordinates instead of against personnel and subordinates, a candidate that is trustworthy, and an innovative candidate for the county’s top cop position. That candidate is Retired Sheriff’s Office captain, Kevin Jensen.

This stems from my personal interaction with current Sheriff Laurie Smith where she blatantly lied to me and my related personal interactions with a number of individuals within Sheriff Smith’s inner circle that proved to me that Sheriff Smith has poor oversight, tolerates dishonest practices, arbitrarily excludes individuals from participating in volunteer activities, allows criminals and dishonest individuals to volunteer, work, and affiliate with her organization and related organizations, and in doing so, deprives the County of Santa Clara of personnel, volunteers and would-be community servants that would serve to overall improve the quality of life and safety for not only the people of the County of Santa Clara, but people of the United States of America.

Namely, this not only stems from my interactions with Sheriff Smith, but also the following individuals within Sheriff Smith’s inner circle:

Ms. Cheryl Stevens (the attorney within the Santa Clara County Office of the County Counsel that is assigned to handle most matters involving the Sheriff’s Office … essentially the Sheriff’s “go-to” for legal advice for official sheriff’s office legal matters)

Mr. James Campagna (the president of the Sheriff’s Advisory Board). Note that Mr. Campagna is a mortgage broker that supposedly assisted Sheriff Smith in securing financing for the purchase of Sheriff Smith’s personal residence.

Sheriff Laurie Smith is probably not a horrible person and by all accounts she has perpetrated some good in the course of her lengthy career with the Sheriff’s Office. Laurie Smith is a candidate for the office of Sheriff. However, she is not the best candidate for Sheriff. Just because a person has held an office for a certain length of time does not mean he/she is the best choice.

Instead of focusing on her remarks, statements, and her minimal campaign related public statements as to why she is better fit for the job, one needs to focus on the facts (i.e. the ACTS Laurie Smith has undertaken in her role as Sheriff). And these facts prove Sheriff Smith lacks the integrity to continue to undertake the duties required of the office of sheriff.

Sheriff Smith has a history of questionable conduct and selective enforcement of her own internal policies, which renders her integrity and ability to lead as nearly non-existent.

In terms of her own troops, the employees of the Sheriff’s Office want Sheriff Smith out.

The Sheriff’s Office employs a handful of civilian employees, hundreds of deputies/sworn peace officers, and a number of “correctional peace officers” that staff the jail operations in Santa Clara County.

The two organizations that represent the majority of these employees (the Santa Clara County Deputy Sheriff’s Association and the Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association) have both publicly endorsed the candidate running against Sheriff Smith. That is, they have both endorsed recently retired Captain Kevin Jensen and voted against endorsing Sheriff Smith.

I know a number of current deputies and employees of the Sheriff’s Office. I know a number of high-ranking current and retired law enforcement officials from various law enforcement agencies within Santa Clara County and from agencies throughout California that have nothing but disgust with Sheriff Smith and her actions. This is why they have nothing but unprecedented support for candidate Kevin Jensen. They have all reiterated what I have come to know. That is, the sheriff’s office does not trust Sheriff Laurie Smith and other law enforcement agencies, their personnel, and their employee organizations do not trust Sheriff Laurie Smith. The Sheriff’s office internal morale is at an all time low and the majority of the department is endorsing Kevin Jensen to take over Sheriff Smith’s position as the county’s top cop.

Although the major news outlets have remained relatively close-lipped about the current race for the position of Sheriff of Santa Clara County, Sheriff Laurie Smith’s history of questionable integrity, poor oversight, and mis-management of the law enforcement agency she heads may have finally caught up with her.

Again, my experience is that Sheriff Laurie Smith lied to me and it pisses me off.

The voters of Santa Clara County have an important choice to make. I urge those voters to pick the candidate that has the experience, integrity, and desire to lead. That candidate is Kevin Jensen.

In 2013, I began researching local non-profits. I wanted to get involved with an organization in my community. I wanted to find an organization that would allow me to give back to my community and also allow me to engage in activities that complemented my pre-existing passion, background and experience. I came across (what I believed) was the right organization – the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Advisory Board.

The Sheriff’s Advisory Board is a nonprofit association of concerned citizens in Santa Clara County, California and other interested parties. The SAB works to enhance and improve the general safety and well being of Sheriff’s Office personnel and the public, protecting the safety of officers in the field and enhancing the cooperative spirit between the Sheriff’s Office and the citizens of Santa Clara County.

Methods
Since the SAB is first and foremost a charitable service organization; it relies on the goodwill and concern of citizens and businesses in Santa Clara County. Since SAB’s goal is to bring together all parties interested in advancing the effectiveness of the Sheriff’s Office. In addition to individual citizens, the SAB plans to have targeted marketing with funding efforts focusing on those businesses and industries that have more than a passing interest in enhancing the protective capacity of the Sheriff’s Office. These would include Banks, Convenience Stores, Fast-food enterprises, as well as “school friendly” organizations and other interested parties.

The Advisory Board is continually looking for new members who are willing to get involved in numerous projects. There are approximately 150 business and community leaders who are members of the Advisory Board. Quarterly, the board of directors meet to discuss needs of the local peace officer community.

This seemed like a fit for me. I am a business owner. I have a background in law enforcement. I have a background in volunteering for law various law enforcement organizations and I have a wide array of skills that are in line with the objectives and activities the SAB apparently undertakes.

I was born and raised in Santa Clara County. I’ve always felt a sense of civic duty and a sense of pride in giving back to my community. In high school, I volunteered with a law enforcement agency in Santa Clara County. Through this volunteer experience, I logged the most community service hours in my graduating class, for which I received one of two community service scholarships given by the Lion’s Club in my hometown.

Just after graduation from high school, I enrolled at San Jose State University – majoring in criminal justice administration and Spanish. At the same time, I went through the hiring process for a civilian position with the law enforcement agency where, at this point, I had spent the past three years as a volunteer. After passing the extensive background investigation and hiring process, I was hired as a civilian employee in the detective bureau of the law enforcement agency. While I worked for the agency, I was simultaneously enrolled at San Jose State University. I attended school in the mornings and worked in the afternoons. At San Jose State, I was named a Dean’s Scholar based upon my academic performance. While working for the law enforcement agency, I experienced a number of facets and functions of law enforcement that even many veteran police department employees and officers never experience in multi-decade careers. That is, I worked in a capacity that allowed me to interact with other agencies and organizations within the justice community throughout Santa Clara County. This included daily interactions with the Superior Court in Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara County Crime Lab, the Juvenile Probation Department, the San Jose Police Department Criminal Identification Unit, and the District Attorney’s Office.

After two years of work and school, I decided on a change of venue. I transferred to UC Santa Barbara. For the next two years, while attending school full time, I volunteered with a non-profit legal service organization in Santa Barbara, I worked for two criminal defense attorneys, and I worked in the Superior Court in the County of Santa Barbara for a juvenile offender alternate sentencing program. All of these positions allowed me to further develop my passion and experience in a number of legal and criminal justice oriented fields.

After graduating from college and a year of the post-college restlessness that plagues the majority of graduates, I obtained a private investigation license and started a private investigation business. I also obtained a number of other certifications, firearms instructor certifications and licenses, and security training licenses through the California Department of Justice, the California Department of Consumer Affairs, and the FBI/Federal Bureau of Investigation. I started a second business, in which I began providing security training and consulting services to individuals and organizations that employ anyone in a security capacity. Through this second company, my work has included training a wide array of individuals and businesses, including the security staff for the AT&T Pro-Am golf tournament, the U.S. Open, and a number of other individuals and organizations.

Through my work as a private investigator, my work includes working as a contract investigator for the County of Santa Clara for the criminal defense conflict panel, for the County of Marin as a contract investigator for the criminal defense conflict panel, and handling a large caseload of private investigation related matters for attorneys, law firms, businesses, and individuals.

I continue to own and operate both businesses (and both are located in Santa Clara County). So, I seem to fall within the “approximately 150 business and community leaders who are members of the (Sheriff’s) Advisory Board.”

I have been attending law school at night for close three years and will be graduating in the summer of 2015 with a juris doctorate degree.

Why do I bore you with my background? Not because I am an egomaniac. Rather, I provide this as a means of dispelling any speculation that my background doesn’t meet the goals and objectives of the Sheriff’s Advisory Board. I’ll say it … I believe I am more than qualified to be a part of the Sheriff’s Advisory Board, I believe that I have a lot to offer such an organization, and I believe I would be an asset to an organization of this nature.

So, in April 2013, I went to the Sheriff’s Advisory Board (“S.A.B.”) website, downloaded the application, filled it out, and submitted it to the Sheriff’s Advisory Board.

On April 10, 2013, I mailed a hardcopy of the application to the advisory board’s post office box (in accordance with the instructions on their website). I also emailed Mr. James Campagna the same day (the president of the SAB, Sheriff Laurie Smith’s mortgage broker, and one of the few folks in Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith has issued a concealed weapons permit to).

In my email, I wrote:

Mr. Campagna,

My name is Cody Salfen. I just mailed a completed application to you for the SCC Sheriff’s Advisory Board. If you do not receive my application within the next couple days, I’d greatly appreciate if you could let me know. Also, if you have any questions or concerns as you review the application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 408-313-0109 or by email. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review my application and I look forward to potentially participating.

Sincerely
Cody Salfen

One minute later, I received an email reply from Mr. Campagna, which stated “Thank you.” This is the only return correspondence I have ever received from Mr. Campagna in the 13 months since submitting the application. Note that the application I mailed contained a significant amount of personal information, including my credit card information for the $300.00 membership fee.

After submitting the application, some time passed and I never heard anything from the SAB. As such, in an attempt to determine the status of my application, I made a number of attempts to contact the SAB. Here’s a quick log of some of my attempts to contact Mr. Campagna to check on the status of my application:

April 23, 2013 – Email To Mr. Campagna // Received No Response

May 8, 2013 – Email to Mr. Campagna // Received No Response

May 13, 2013 – Telephone Call to Mr. Campagna (to the phone number listed on the Sheriff’s Advisory Board). The call rang through to voicemail/recording greeting that was apparently Mr. Campagna’s voice. I left a message requesting a call back. I never received a call back.

After a month of being ignored, I was annoyed, but determined to have my application processed.

One of my former law school professors is an attorney with the Santa Clara County Office of County Counsel – her name is Cheryl Stevens. The office of the County Counsel is a government agency in Santa Clara County and is essentially the “law firm” that represents the County of Santa Clara in a wide array of legal matters. Their duties include representing the Office of the Sheriff. Ms. Stevens is specifically assigned to represent the Sheriff’s Office on a wide array of legal matters, including employment related matters (i.e. matters involving employee discipline, management, and policy within the Sheriff’s Office).

How did I know that Ms. Stevens was within Sheriff Laurie Smith’s inner circle? Ms. Stevens repeatedly talked about her relationship with Sheriff Smith, the Sheriff’s Office’s affairs, complained about the employee unions (i.e. the Deputy Sheriff’s Association and the Correctional Peace Officers Association), and repeatedly told stories detailing personal facts about various depositions, hearings, and circumstances of personnel matters relating to her dealings as an attorney representing the Sheriff’s Office.

I assure you these stories were not shared by Ms. Steven’s as a means of enriching our understanding of the subject matter of the law school course she was teaching. The course in no way involved employment law or anything related to the duties Ms. Stevens undertakes as an attorney with the Office of the County Counsel. Myself and a number of classmates oftentimes felt as though Ms. Stevens failed to prepare for class and shared these irrelevant accounts of pending personnel matters within the Sheriff’s Office as a means of passing the time.

I remember one story Ms. Stevens shared about a sheriff’s office employee that was facing termination. Ms. Stevens was set to go on vacation and there was a termination matter or hearing pending. This hearing that was threatening to carry-over into the time Ms. Stevens was supposed to go on vacation. If I remember correct, Ms. Steven’s told us that the County offered the employee some sort of termination option. The employee asked for a break in order to speak with his wife (i.e. to tell his wife that he was about to lose his job and accept the termination). I remember thinking that Ms. Steven’s seemed relatively insensitive, not only because she was sharing these intimate facts, but because she laughed and expressed her annoyance that this employee was so rude in asking for time to speak to his wife before accepting the termination. God forbid a person that is a few minutes away from losing their job infringe upon Ms. Stevens vacation time in the form of requesting a few additional minutes to call his wife about the fact that he was about to be fired….right?

Nonetheless, I saw no point in voicing my feelings as to the inappropriateness associated with Ms. Stevens’ disclosure of these facts. Instead, I listened.

Because Ms. Stevens was so candid and forthcoming about her role with the County and the Sheriff’s Office, when my SAB application was not being processed, I figured she could potentially help me figure out why my application was being ignored.

On May 15, 2013, I decided to email Ms. Stevens:

Professor Stevens,

I hope all is well with you and I hope you are enjoying your Tuesday evenings now that school is out of session! Anyways, I am writing to you with regard to a matter unrelated to [school].

I am interested in assuming a volunteer position with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Advisory board. As such, on April 10, I applied to the Sheriff’s Advisory board (http://sccsab.org/). I followed the instructions on the SAB website (i.e. completed and mailed my application to the PO box listed on the website). The application included my inclusion of a significant amount of personal information, including my full credit card number in order for the SAB to charge the $300.00 application / annual membership fee. That same day, I emailed the head of the SAB / Mr. Campagna (http://sccsab.org/membership.php) at the email address on the SAB website, advised him that I mailed in the application, and let him know to contact me if he didn’t receive my application in the next few days. He immediately replied stating “thank you.”

Thereafter, I did not hear back from him. I have attempted to contact him numerous times via email and telephone. To date, I have received no response and I am not sure why Mr. Campagna is refusing to reply to my contact attempts / process my application. I’ve listed out my contact attempts below and have also attached my emails and call log into the attached document entitled “02 – Log of Contact Attempts.pdf”
CONTACT ATTEMPTS:
1) April 23, 2013 // Email To Mr. Campagna // Received No Response
2) May 4, 2013 // Email To Mr. Campagna // Received No Response
3) May 8, 2013 // Email to Mr. Campagna // Received No Response
4) May 13, 2013 // Telephone Call to Mr. Campagna @ 408-978-2064 // It rang through to voicemail and I left a message requesting a call back. To date I have not heard back from him.

Also, I’ve attached the application (as submitted to the board / Mr. Campagna on 04/10/2013) to this email. It has a lot of personal information, so please take care in the event you print off a hard copy of everything. My purpose in contacting you is due to your position with the county / the fact that you work hand in hand with the Sheriff’s Office. I am not seeking any special attention or any preferential treatment. I am just asking if you could potentially bring this to Sheriff Smith’s attention and/or relay my application and the related circumstances to Sheriff Smith so that my application is processed.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to review this. I know there are much more pressing matters, but I’d greatly appreciate if you could help me sort this out. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me back or call me at 408.313.0109.

Sincerely,

Cody Salfen

The following day, I received an email from Ms. Stevens:

“Cody I will look into this and get back to you.”

I replied via email:

“Thank you!”

Almost a month passed and Ms. Stevens failed to follow up with me (note that at this point, there was no follow up by anyone else – neither Mr. Campagna nor anyone else). So, I sent an email to Ms. Stevens on June 13, 2013 as a means of following up in light of her stated course of action (i.e. her May email in which she pledge to “look into this and get back to [me].”)

Prof. Stevens,

Can you please let me know the status of this matter/what you were able to determine with regard to my advisory board application?

Thank you,
Cody Salfen

On June 13, 2013, Ms. Stevens replied:

I confirmed that SAB did not receive the materials and have been trying to track down what happened to your application fee. Was your card charged? Please re-send the atachments to the original email so that I can forward to the appropriate person. I never printed the info to secure your privacy and inadvertenly deleted the initial email. I was away on vacation for a week and had just last week got back in touch with my contact who promised to do more follow-up.

Cheryl Stevens

First off, Ms. Stevens seems to be of the same school of integrity lacking public officials as Sheriff Smith – and this confirmed as much. Her remarks (in my opinion) are total and complete lies.

I’ll admit, I should have sent the application via certified mail so that I could have objective proof the SAB received my application. Nonetheless, I can say with near certainty the SAB did in fact receive my application. I never received a “returned letter” (i.e. when a letter is undeliverable to the recipient, it is returned to the sender and I, as the sender, never received the hard-copy application back from the US Postal Service).

Rather, as mentioned, I deposited the application in the mail in April 2013. Also, if you remember, I emailed the president of the SAB in April (the same day I mailed the application). In my email to Mr. Campagna (in April), I specifically wrote:

“I just mailed a completed application to you for the SCC Sheriff’s Advisory Board. If you do not receive my application within the next couple days, I’d greatly appreciate if you could let me know. Also, if you have any questions or concerns as you review the application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 408-313-0109 or by email. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review my application and I look forward to potentially participating.”

I would have assumed this would translate into Mr. Campagna sending me an email or a placing a quick call to me within a week of not receiving my application. But, it’s clear they likely received my application and it’s clear Mr. Campagna had no intention of responding to my application or contact attempts. Mr. Campagna and the Sheriff’s Advisory Board didn’t want me to be a part of their volunteer organization.

Next, in response to Ms. Stevens’ line of (probable) falsehoods, I emailed Ms. Stevens on June 14, 2013:

Prof. Stevens,

Thank you for following up. Attached is the application as mailed to the SAB on 04/10/2013 to the post office box listed on the SAB website. Also, I’ve again attached my log of unsuccessful email and telephone contact attempts from April 2013 to present in an attempt to reach Mr. Campagna / the head of the SAB. I do not believe the application fee was charged to the debit card / Visa noted on the application, but I will double check my banking records. If you could please confirm your receipt of my application and confirm I don’t need to do anything further in order to see that my application is received and processed by the SAB, I would greatly appreciate it. Also, if you could please let me know what I can expect with regard to a method and turnaround time for a notification by the SAB as to the status of my application, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you again for your assistance with everything and I hope you had a nice vacation.

Sincerely,
Cody Salfen

At this point, I felt that this could finally end up in my application being processed. I was wrong.

Despite my request for Ms. Stevens to confirm her receipt of my June 14 email (and the accompanying application), I didn’t receive a response. As such, on June 17, 2013, I emailed Ms. Stevens and stated:

Prof. Stevens,

Please confirm you received my email from Friday and accompanying documents.

Thank You,
Cody Salfen

The following day, on June 18, 2013, Ms. Steven’s replied:

Yes I got it
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

On June 20, 2013, I replied to Ms. Stevens:

Thank you for confirming. Can you also confirm that I don’t need to do anything else / confirm that my application has been received by the SAB?

Thank you,
Cody Salfen

I never received a response from Ms. Stevens. I figured this was another dead-end.

However, on June 27, 2013, I received a call from the Sheriff’s Advisory Board director, Mr. Dale Unger. I couldn’t pick up the call, so Mr. Unger left a voicemail.

In his voicemail, Mr. Under identified himself as a retired captain of the Sheriff’s Office and Mr. Under spoke regarding my SAB application. Mr. Unger provided instructions to call him back so as initiate the processing of my SAB application. In Mr. Unger’s voicemail, Mr. Unger spoke with a positive and encouraging tone and he stated:

“Hi Mr. Salfen this is Dale Unger. I’m with the Sheriff’s Advisory Board. I’m the director. I’m also a retired captain with the sheriff’s office. ……….I got your application. Could you give me a call [XXX.XXX.XXXX]? I just got a couple questions for you then we will get your application into backgrounds, which I’m sure, working in private investigation will be a breeze and we’ll get you on here. Again, Dale Unger, my phone number is [XXX.XXX.XXXX]. I look forward to your call. Thank you.”

In addition to the call from Mr. Unger, I received an email from Mr. Unger the same day. Mr. Unger’s email echoed the information in his voicemail:

Hi Mr. Cody Salfen;

I left you a voice message earlier, but that I would also send you this e-mail regarding your SAB application. Would you please call me at your earliest convenience so that I may process your SAB application.

I was happy that the SAB was finally (seemingly) tending to my application. But, don’t get too excited. Mr. Unger’s apparent enthusiasm for having me become a part of Sheriff’s Advisory Board quickly and mysteriously vanished. Without ever actually speaking with Mr. Unger, Mr. Unger made a 180 in terms of his willingness to process my application.

In accordance with Mr. Unger’s instructions in the voice message and in his email, I called him back shortly thereafter. I left a voicemail in which I identified myself, explained that I was returning his call, and requested that Mr. Unger call me back.

In addition, I replied to his email and let him know I was ready, willing, and able to speak via telephone or email:

Mr. Unger,

Thank you very much for your call and thanks for following up regarding my application. I’ve been tied up on a detail all day and therefore unable to call you back. What time works for me to give you a call tomorrow?

Thank you again for contacting me and I look forward to speaking with you.

Sincerely,
Cody Salfen

In both my email and my voicemail for Mr. Unger, I provided my contact information, identified myself, and indicated that I was responding to his contact attempts.

Nonetheless, I never received a call back from Mr. Unger – the enthusiasm vanished.

That same day (June 27, 2013), Mr. Unger’s overall tone seemed to change in an email he sent to me:

The SAB President, Mr. Jim Campagna, said he will be sending you a letter regarding your interest with the SAB. Please contact him with any questions.

Thank you,
Dale Unger

Obviously this is frustrating as hell.

Here’s my take on what happened ….

I’m guessing that Ms. Stevens gave my SAB application to Mr. Unger. And, before Mr. Unger had a chance to speak with Mr. Campagna about my application, I’m guessing Mr. Unger decided to pick up the phone and call me — which resulted in his enthusiastic voicemail and subsequent email with instructions to call him back.

However, after the contact from Mr. Unger (via email and telephone on June 27, 2013), I am guessing Mr. Campagna and Mr. Unger spoke. And, I’m guessing that conversation consisted of Mr. Campagna advising Mr. Unger to the effect that Mr. Campagna didn’t want me to become a part of the SAB. Mr. Unger’s last email on June 27, 2013 seemed to reflect as much.

At this point, I was still confused by the information Mr. Unger provided in his last email on June 27 as I believed the application was finally being processed. I waited a few days and never received any letter from Mr. Campagna.

Some time passed and I still hadn’t received a letter from Mr. Campagna. So, on July 1, 2013, I wrote an email to Mr. Unger:

Dale,

Thanks for the reply. I’ll keep an eye out for Mr. Campagna’s letter.

Best,
Cody Salfen

Well, no surprisingly, I never received a letter from Mr. Campagna (not a denial letter, not a request for further information…. I received NOTHING).

So, on July 15 2013, I left a voicemail for Mr. Unger (and never received a call back). I confirmed the number I called was in fact Mr. Unger’s telephone number as he identified himself in his recorded greeting.

Later in the day (on July 15, 2013), I was annoyed that it was taking so much effort to get a meaningful response. So, I decided to turn it up a notch and send Mr. Campagna an email (and copy the email to a number of pubic officials in the hopes this would cause someone to at least process my application).

The email I sent was cc’d to Ms. Cheryl Stevens with the office of the County Counsel, Mr. Michael Wasserman (District 1 Supervisor for Santa Clara County – sent via fax), Mr. Dale Unger, Mr. Orry P. Korb (lead County Counsel), and Sheriff Laurie Smith (via fax). The email I sent was as follows:

I am writing to you in your official capacity as the president of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Advisory Board. I am writing to follow up with you regarding my Sheriff’s Advisory Board application that was originally sent to you on April 10, 2013 and had not been processed. On April 10, 2013, in accordance with the application procedures on the Sheriff’s Advisory Board website, I mailed the original completed application to the post office box listed on the website (http://sccsab.org/about.php). Prior to mailing the application, I scanned the completed application and retained a PDF version of the application as mailed to you. In addition to mailing the hard copy application to the post office box, I emailed you at the address listed on the SAB website. In that email, I wrote “My name is Cody Salfen. I just mailed a completed application to you for the SCC Sheriff’s Advisory Board. If you do not receive my application within the next couple days, I’d greatly appreciate if you could let me know. Also, if you have any questions or concerns as you review the application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 408-313-0109 or by email. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review my application and I look forward to potentially participating.” Within one minute, you replied via email indicating “thank you.”

After nearly two weeks lapsed and because I neither heard from you in response to the application I mailed nor had the post office return the letter containing my application (which would have be indicative of any potential error on my part in addressing the envelope that contained my application), I I followed up with you via email (on April 23, 2013) to ensure you received my application. I never received a response to that email. Again, on May 4, I hadn’t heard from you so I sent you another email. I received no response. On May 8, I sent another email and received no response. On May 13, 2013, I called the number listed on the SAB website (408-978-2064). This is apparently your personal cell phone. I left a detailed message explaining that I was attempting to check on the status of my application. I did not receive a call or email response from you.

On May 15, 2013, due to the fact that I was clearly not going to receive a response from you regarding my application, I spoke with Ms. Cheryl Stevens, with the Santa Clara County Counsel. I apprised Ms. Stevens of my attempts to follow up regarding my application. After exchanging emails with Ms. Steven for close to one month, I received a request from Ms. Stevens (via email) which stated in part “Please re-send the atachments to the original email so that I can forward to the appropriate person.” The following day / on June 14, 2013, in accordance with this request, I emailed Ms. Stevens the completed application. Due to the fact that I hadn’t heard back from Ms. Stevens three days later, I emailed ms. Stevens to confirm that she received my application. She replied on June 18 and indicated her receipt of my application by stating “Yes I got it.”

On June 27, 2013, I received a call the Sheriff’s Advisory Board director from Mr. Dale Unger regarding my application along with instructions to call him back so as initiate the processing of my application. In Mr. Unger’s voicemail, he stated “Hi Mr. Salfen this is Dale Unger. I’m with the Sheriff’s Advisory Board. I’m the director. I’m also a retired captain with the sheriff’s office. ……….I got your application. Could you give me a call 408.XXX.XXXX? I just got a couple questions for you then we will get your application into backgrounds, which I’m sure, working in private investigation will be a breeze and we’ll get you on here. Again, Dale Unger, my phone number is 408.417.9506. I look forward to your call. Thank you.” In accordance with these instructions, I called him back shortly thereafter and I left a voicemail in which I identified myself, explained that I was returning his call, and requested he call me back.” In addition to the call from Mr. Unger, I received an email from Mr. Unger, which echoed the information from his voicemail and stated “I left you a voice message earlier, but that I would also send you this e-mail regarding your SAB application. Would you please call me at your earliest convenience so that I may process your SAB application.”

In response to this telephone call and voice message, I called Mr. Unger back and left a voice mail. In addition, I replied to his email. In both my email and my voicemail, I provided my contact information, identified myself, and indicated that I was responding to Mr. Unger’s contact attempts. I never received a call back from Mr. Unger. I did receive an email response from Mr. Unger (on June 27), in which Mr. Unger stated “The SAB President, Mr. Jim Campagna, said he will be sending you a letter regarding your interest with the SAB. Please contact him with any questions.” I was confused by this information as I believed the application was finally being processed based upon the contents of Mr. Unger’s email and telephone call/voice message earlier in the day. I waited a few days and never received any letter (electronically or via snail mail) from you. Nonetheless, I replied to Mr. Unger’s email on July 1 in which I stated “Thanks for the reply. I’ll keep an eye out for Mr. Campagna’s letter.”

Earlier today, I left a voicemail for Mr. Unger and have not heard back. I confirmed this is in fact Mr. Unger’s telephone number as he identifies himself in his recorded greeting.

I am writing in an attempt to figure what is going on. Is there some reason you have avoided processing my application and have avoided my contact attempts? It is clear that something changed from the initial contacts I received from Mr. Unger via telephone and email on June 27 (where he was ready, willing, and able to process my application) and the subsequent email in which he indicated that you would be sending me a letter. To date, my application has not been processed despite exchanging total twenty-one emails and telephone calls/voicemails with you, Mr. Unger, and Ms. Stevens.

My interest in being a member of the Sheriff’s Advisory Board and my desire to give back to my community through a position with the Advisory Board remains. As such, I fully intend to continue to pursue the application process. Given your role as president, I would greatly appreciate if you would respond to this correspondence at any of the many methods of contacting me that have be included in most if not all of the twenty-one exchanges of correspondence I’ve had since submitting my application on April 10, 2013. This includes contacting by email (to Cody@CodySInvestigations.com), by telephone (on my personal cell phone at 408.313.0109), by fax (1.877.516.4189), or by mail (Cody Salfen, PO Box 33216, Los Gatos, CA 95031). Further, this includes processing the application as submitted on April 10 and as re-submitted on June 14, 2013.

Sincerely,
Cody Salfen

One person did reply soon after I sent the email. In a reply email to me, Mr. Dale Unger wrote:

Dear Mr. Salfen;

In response to your voice message that I just received, you again need to contact Mr. Jim Campagna, SAB President, regarding your SAB application. I can not assist you any further.

FYI, Mr. Campagna is a very busy business person in addition to his duties with the SAB. I’m sure he will get back to you.

Thank you,
Dale Unger
Sent from my iPhone

I replied to Mr. Unger via email:

Mr. Unger,
Thanks for your reply and responsiveness. I will continue to wait for Mr. Campagna’s response to my application and my emails.
Cody Salfen

Mr. Unger replied:

Your welcome.

Thereafter, NONE of the officials within the County of Santa Clara replied to my email and accordingly, no apparent action was taken by the Sheriff Laurie Smith to have the SAB review my application.

A bit later, I was going about my business and my cell phone rang. I was not familiar with the number that popped up on my caller ID (408-348-XXXX).

I answered and stated:

“Hello, this is Cody.”

There was silence on the other end, but it sounded as though someone was there.

A few moments later, a female spoke up and stated:

“Dale?”

I was confused, but quickly remembered that I corresponded with a “Dale” earlier in the day (i.e. “Dale” = Dale Unger / SAB Director and retired Captian within the Sheriff’s Office and my previous email regarding my application was sent to to Mr. Unger, Mr. Campagna, Sheriff Laurie Smith, and the other Santa Clara County Officials).

Next, the female identified herself and stated:

“Um, hi, this is Sheriff Laurie Smith.”

It was immediately apparent that she intended to call Mr. Unger, but accidentally called me.

It was honestly comical as Sheriff Smith and I sat on opposite ends of the line, both realizing Sheriff Smith’s sudden discomfort brought on by our mutual realization that she mistakenly called me. I couldn’t help but laugh as I imagined Sheriff Smith’s internal dialogue when she realized she accidentally called me (i.e. “Oh shit. I just called the persistent F***er that has been annoying the hell out of my office trying to figure out the status of his SAB application”).

Nonetheless, I seized the opportunity to try to elicit some level of response as to the status of my application and engaged Sheriff Smith in a conversation that lasted for about a minute.

Sheriff Smith was friendly enough. Sheriff Smith seemed sincere when she advised that she would, “get to the bottom of this,” and that either she (Sheriff Smith) or Mr. Campagna would be in touch “very soon” regarding the situation/ the status of my application.

Needless to say, Sheriff Smith never replied to me.

When someone states they intend to do something (i.e. see that I receive some response) and this doesn’t occur (i.e. to date, I have never received a response after speaking with Sheriff Smith via telephone), the only logical interpretation is that the statement was a lie. Accordingly, Sheriff Smith lied to me.

I would have appreciated a formal response. This could have come in the form of a letter (even if it was a denial of my application, which I would have appreciated much more than the organization flat out ignoring my application).
But, to flat out ignore my application seems wrong. I am an upstanding citizen that wanted to give back to my community by joining the Sheriff’s volunteer organization. Sheriff Smith and the Sheriff’s Advisory spoiled my desire to get involved and left me with a sense of distrust and disappointment in Sheriff Smith’s management of her office and related organizations.

I met the profile of the current membership and have documented relevant experience, which I guarantee exceeds that of the majority of Sheriff’s Advisory Board members at the point at which they were accepted as members. But, Sheriff Smith and Mr. Campagna prevented that from occurring.

Similarly, I am disappointed that Supervisor Mike Wasserman refused to reply to my request for his assistance. Mr. Wasserman (I thought) always seemed to have an open door policy. In fact, when he was running for a town council position in Los Gatos, (unsolicited) he personally came to my front door to discuss his plan. I thought that was pretty cool. Once elected to the council, Mr. Wasserman was always willing to listen to a citizen’s concerns. But, apparently this sense accessibility disappeared after he was elected to the County Supervisor position. Mr. Wasserman doesn’t have enough time to reply to me (a citizen in his district), but clearly has time to produce post after post on Facebook about everything he is doing for “our community.” Apparently I was wrong – he’s just another narcissistic politician that puts his own interests above those of the people.

I tried to dig deep and figure out what would cause Mr. Campagna, Sheriff Smith, or anyone else to desire to exclude me from the SAB. I don’t know Mr. Campagna, I don’t know Mr. Unger, and I don’t know Sheriff Smith. I’ve never interacted with any of these individuals aside from the interactions I’ve outlined in this post that occurred after I submitted my application.

In terms of any sort of brushes with the law, I’m a big time criminal. So maybe that’s why they excluded me. My criminal history? I’ll admit it……

I’ve received a bunch of parking tickets, all of which have been paid on or before the due date.

I received one (infraction) speeding ticket 5+ years ago in El Dorado County. I wanted to get to Tahoe before the lifts opened. I went to traffic school.

I received a ticket for lighting off a fire-cracker in my backyard (in violation of a local ordinance). This case was dismissed. Nonetheless, I fully disclosed this in my Sheriff’s Advisory Board application.

I have no arrests or convictions for any criminal offenses.

Yes, as you can see, I am a brazen criminal. Surely the fire-cracker incident (an incident in which I received a citation that resulted in the matter being dropped – no criminal convictions, no plea bargains – the matter was dropped) prevented me from obtaining a position with the SAB.. right?

But, when I looked into the current membership and affiliates of the SAB, I came to discover that the Sheriff’s Advisory Board doesn’t discriminate based upon serious criminal offenses (and a minor town ordinance preventing someone from lighting off a fire-cracker doesn’t seem rise to rise anywhere close to the “serious” category – especially when compared to the repeated felony arrests of Sheriff’s Advisory Board affiliates and repeated instances of advisory board affiliate conduct involving serious breaches of the public’s trust).

In 2013, an investigation by NBC revealed that 49ers linebacker Aldon Smith was invited to a Sheriff’s Advisory Board event at the Sheriff’s Office shooting range. Aldon Smith accepted the invitation – reportedly attending the Sheriff’s Advisory Board event, taking a spin in the Sheriff’s Office helicopter, and firing weapons. Remember, Aldon Smith has a long list of brushes with the law, but his serious brushes with the law didn’t preclude him from participating:

In one incident, Aldon Smith was arrested for DUI.

In a second (unrelated) incident, Aldon Smith was again arrested for DUI (with a blood alcohol content of 0.15) when he crashed into a tree. He was arrested and booked on additional charges, including possession of marijuana and police located “pills” in Aldon Smith’s vehicle.

There’s more …

Aldon Smith was indicted on felony charges of possession of illegal weapons, . Smith recently plead no contest (essentially guilty) to the DUI charge and to the three felony counts for possessing illegal assault rifles.

Is Sheriff Smith responsible for seeing that policies and procedures for including and excluding individuals from participating in the Sheriff’s Advisory Board are enforced an an equal manner ? Yes. But Sheriff Smith hasn’t. She allowed Aldon Smith to come to an advisory board event, fly on the Sheriff’s Office helicopter, and fire weapons at the Sheriff’s shooting range.

Is Sheriff Smith responsible for seeing that a person like Aldon Smith, a person who has a clear disregard for the law, is excluded from participation in activities involving the Sheriff’s Advisory Board (i.e. the event Aldon Smith was invited to), excluded from firing weapons at the Sheriff’s Office firing range, and excluded from riding on the Sheriff’s Office helicopter? Yes. But Sheriff Smith allowed these incidents to occur and ignored her responsibilities.

In an interview with the Mercury News, Sheriff Laurie Smith refused to acknowledge that Aldon Smith was a suspect in a possession of illegal weapons case stemming from a wild party Aldon Smith hosted at his residence in Santa Clara County. Sheriff Smith only labeled Aldon Smith a victim – even though the felony weapons indictment stemmed from the party at his residence when the weapons were located at Aldon Smith’s residence – and thus in Aldon Smith’s possession. Two days after Sheriff Smith’s interview with the Mercury News, Aldon Smith was indicted in Santa Clara County on a number of felony counts relating to weapons possession. It’s unclear whether Sheriff Smith knew of the investigation when she failed to acknowledge Aldon Smith was a suspect, but as the Sheriff of Santa Clara County, it seems as though she should have known and her demeanor during the interview, according to the interviewer, seemed as though Sheriff Smith was angry that she was even being questioned about the matter.

The Sheriff’s Advisory Board membership has included another (accused) criminal – Mr. Ron Battistella. I’ll admit, Mr. Batistella’s offenses don’t include lighting off a little fire-cracker in his backyard. Rather, Ron Battistella, who has been among the SAB membership, is an upstanding gent that was recently arrested and charged with nine felony counts. These felonies include grand theft, securities fraud and the sale of unqualified securities. Battistella is accused of essentially running a ponzi-scheme and defrauding investors of over one million dollars. Battistella has been in the public eye for over two years in relation to allegation after allegation from victims of Battistella’s repeated actions – the victims claiming that Battistella would agree to sell the victim’s vehicles on a consignment basis (and receive a portion of the sale price for selling the vehicle through Battistella’s car dealership). Then, when Battistella would actually sell the vehicles and receive the proceeds from the buyer, Mr Battistella would keep the money (i.e. defrauding the seller of the sale proceeds and instead Mr. Battistella was keeping all of the proceeds for himself). Again, this seems like someone that really fits the mold of a desirable Sheriff’s Advisory Board member, right?

Needless to say, these instances of allowing accused and convicted criminals to participate in the SAB not only served to frustrate me further, but made it clear my minot fire-cracker incident (which was dropped / did not result in any criminal conviction whatsoever) did not preclude me from participating in the SAB.

Nonetheless, the SAB has never asserted any reason for excluding me. They have just ignored my application.

My frustration led me to do a bit of research about Sheriff Smith, Mr. Campagna, and the Sheriff’s Advisory Board. The result – I’ve come to reconsider my decision to become a part of the SAB as long as Sheriff Smith is in office and as long as Mr. Campagna is affiliated with the organization. This is not as a means of allowing the SAB to “win” in their obvious decision and desire to exclude me. Rather, I do not want my name associated with dishonest people or organization (i.e. Sheriff Smith and Mr. Campagna) that have a track record of dishonesty and a track record of including criminals in an organization and arbitrarily excluding qualified non-criminals.

A simple Google search of “James Campagna and Laurie Smith” revealed a Mercury News article from 2011. The article goes onto detail a history. Apparently, Mr. James Campagna, aside from his role as SAB president, is a mortgage broker. And, Mr. Campagna apparently assisted Sheriff Smith purchase her $850,000.00 San Jose residence in 2005. This alone isn’t cause for concern. But, the article goes on to claim Sheriff Smith picks and chooses the people to whom she has issued concealed weapons permits (CCW) – and, as you probably can guess, Mr. Campagna is one of the chosen few that Sheriff Smith issued a CCW.

Let’s be clear – Sheriff Smith doesn’t have an obligation to issue CCW permits in Santa Clara County under the current California law. As of now, no citizen in California has a right to a CCW. However, when a chief law enforcement issues permits to some people and not others, there must be a justification for the difference in treatment (i.e. issuing to some and not others). That is, the granting of some and denial of others must be adequately justified (and the deciding factor cannot be whether the applicant is a friend of the sheriff or a previous campaign donor – the common characteristics amongst many of the individuals in Santa Clara to whom Sheriff Smith has issued a concealed weapons permit in her time as Sheriff).

It is unclear why a mortgage broker (Mr. Campagna – a person to whom Sheriff Smith has issued a CCW) has a higher level of justification or need for a concealed weapon permit in comparison to Tom Scocca, a former police officer, former sheriff’s deputy, and private security manager in Silicon Valley that applied for and was denied a CCW permit by Sheriff Smith. This apparent arbitrary and unjustified variance in Sheriff Smith’s issuance policy is the basis of Mr. Scocca’s lawsuit against Sheriff Smith, which is still in progress.

Again, the issue does not involve whether Sheriff Smith is required to issue a CCW permit to anyone. She doesn’t have to. California law does not require a sheriff to issue to anyone. However, when a sheriff does in fact issue a permit to someone, which Sheriff Smith has done, she violates the law when denial of some and granting of others lacks sufficient legal justification. Under the United States Constitution’s 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause (which applies to the states), Sheriff Smith, as a state government official (Sheriff) is precluded from denying anyone equal protection of the law. It seems as though issuing a CCW to someone (Campagna) and not another person (Scocca), when the latter has more cause for issuance denies that person (Scocca) equal protection of the law.

The CCW issues involve another handful of instances where Sheriff Smith has clearly, unevenly, and without legal-justification provided apparent preferential treatment to friends and campaign donors, while denying those with a more apparent “cause” or “justification” to support a CCW issuance. In an article published by the Mercury News in 2011, the Sheriff’s Office (under Sheriff Smith) issued a list of 49 civilian CCW permit holders. 13 of the 29 CCW holders were campaign donors.

In closing, I challenge the voters of Santa Clara County to do the research and decide on the better candidate. Focus on the facts and you will find that not only is Kevin Jensen the better candidate, he is the ideal candidate.

Chances are you either personally know one or more members of the sheriff’s office (or you know someone that does). Speak with them, do some internet gum-shoeing, and see for yourself. Sheriff Laurie Smith has a long history of uneven enforcement internally (in terms of the manner by which she mis-manages her office and personnel) and externally (in her dealings with the general public).

Kevin Jensen is not just “the other guy,” but he is an experienced, ethical, professional, and innovative breath of fresh air that will make this county safer and will restore the long-dwindling integrity to the Sheriff’s Office in Santa Clara County. This isn’t a matter of gun-control, politics, or anger. This is a matter of voting for the person that is best suited for the job. It is a matter of safety and integrity. These are not only two attributes that are seemingly a pre-requisite to a chief law enforcement officer. But, they are two attributes that Sheriff Laurie Smith lacks and two attributes that Kevin Jensen possesses.

In the words of Samuel Adams, “If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

The Sheriff’s Office is in ruins – much of which has been caused by the actions or inactions that have occurred under Sheriff Laurie Smith’s watch. Laurie Smith is a politician. Laurie Smith is not a leader. Kevin Jensen is not a politician. Kevin Jensen is an established leader, a distinguished law enforcement officer, and is the experienced patriot that is ready, willing, and more than able to assume of the position at the top of the office of Sheriff in Santa Clara County. Let Kevin Jensen be the experienced patriot. Vote for him and end Sheriff Laurie Smith’s vain legacy of avoidance, deceit, and lack of transparency.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY (Isla Vista), CA. For Immediate Release. By Cody Salfen. Last night, a 22-year-old lone gunman opened fire at various locations throughout the University of California, Santa Barbara’s densely populated student community known as Isla Vista. The gunman – Elliot Rodger – a student at a local community college in Santa Barbara (not UC Santa Barbara) and son of Hunger Games assistant director, Peter Rodger, fired round after round of ammunition from a semi-automatic handgun as he drove through Isla Vista in his BMW.

In addition to the victims of the rampage, Elliot Rodger was also killed during the incident – either as a result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound or at the hands of responding Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s deputies. Authorities have yet to confirm the cause of death.

In a disturbing video posted on YouTube just before the incident entitled “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution,” Rodger apparently explains his plan to and motives for carrying out the attack. Rodger’s homicidal rage was apparently fueled by isolation he claims to have experienced as a result of being repeatedly rejected by females and frustration with the “brutes” the females chose instead (of Rodger).

Photo of Elliot Rodger – the alleged gunman that killed at least six people and injured nine others in a massacre in UC Santa Barbara’s densely populated student community, Isla Vista. This photo was taken from a disturbing video Rodger posted on YouTube the day before the shooting. The video is entitled “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution” and contains Rodger’s description of his apparent plan to “take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you.” In the video, Rodger explains his plan to carryout the attack – which he claims is fueled by isolation he experienced as a result of repeatedly being rejected by females and his frustration with the “brutes” the females chose instead (of Rodger).

In the six-minute video, which has since been removed by YouTube, Rodger provides vengeful rants about his frustrations with life and his plan for the shooting, which he describes in stating, “tomorrow is the day of retribution.”Rodger continues, “on the day of retribution I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoiled stuck up blonde slut I see inside there.” Rodger goes on to explain that, “after I [Rodger] have annihilated every single girl in the sorority house. I’ll take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there.”

This isn’t the first time one of Hollywood’s youth has perpetrated a mass-killing in the small Isla Vista community. Ironically, in February of 2001, in a similar but unrelated killing-spree in Isla Vista, the emotionally disturbed son of a Hollywood director and producer killed four young adults and seriously injured a fifth in the same general area that Rodger perpetrated last night’s rampage. During the 2001 incident, David Attias [son of Hollywood director Daniel Attias - known for his work on a number of hit HBO shows] killed four individuals in Isla Vista by running them over with his vehicle. During the incident, Attias (a then student of UC Santa Barbara) was yelling “I am the angel of death” from his 1991 Saab as he drove down Isla Vista’s ocean-front Del Playa Drive – killing the four individuals. Attias was subsequently declared legally insane by a Superior Court judge and thus found not guilty by reason of insanity. Attias was committed to a state mental hospital (in 2002), but has since been released from state custody (in 2012). Attias’ release came after he spent close to ten-years as a ward of the state and patient of the mental institution – after a Superior Court judge’s 2012 ruling in which the judge concluded Attias was no longer a threat to the health and safety of the general public.

Although there is no believed connection between the 2001 killings by Attias and last night’s massacre perpetrated by Rodger, the incidents share some striking similarities. In the most recent incident, Rodger, also a son of a Hollywood producer, drove through Isla Vista – shooting individuals at nine different locations from the driver’s seat of his BMW.

The matter is still being investigated by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, but law enforcement does not believe there are any other suspects – referencing that Rodger is the only believed perpetrator.

A gunman in a black BMW opened fire on crowds of people Friday night in a Southern California seaside town near UC Santa Barbara, killing six people and injuring seven others in what investigators described as a “mass murder” rampage.

The gunman was later involved in at least one shootout with sheriff’s deputies and died of a gunshot wound to the head, Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown said at a Saturday morning news conference. He could not confirm whether the gunshot was self-inflicted.

Seven victims were hospitalized and at least one of them had undergone surgery for life-threatening injuries, Brown said. Details regarding the other victims’ conditions were not immediately available.
Witnesses who spoke with NBC4 identified the gunman as Elliot Rodger. Sheriff’s department personnel are investigating a video in which a man identified as Rodger details plans for “retribution” and “revenge against humanity” prior to the shooting.

The gunfire erupted just before 9:30 p.m. in the town known for vibrant parties and a lively weekend scene in its business district. The gunman shot victims while he was inside his car, a black BMW 3 series coupe, according to witness and sheriff’s department accounts.

Nine crime scene locations were confirmed across Isla Vista, but no shots were fired on the university’s campus, Brown said. At one point, the black BMW stopped outside a popular deli before rapid gunfire sprayed into the crowd.

“I heard somewhere between 12 to 20 shots into a group of people who were eating in front of it,” witness Robert Johnson said.

Witness: Gunman Fired Into Deli Crowd in Drive-By Rampage

Approximately six minutes after the initial call was received, the driver shot at responding deputies and deputies returned gunfire. The driver fled in his vehicle, encountered another deputy, exchanged gunfire and fled again.

The driver eventually crashed into a parked vehicle. When deputies approached the vehicle, they found the lone occupant dead from an apparent gunshot wound.

As Shooting Unfolded in Isla Vista, Witnesses Turned to Social Media
About 10 minutes passed between the time officials received the first 911 call to the time the suspect was determined to be dead at the scene, Brown said.

Officials believe the gunman acted alone and are not looking for any additional suspects. One semi automatic handgun was recovered from the suspect’s vehicle.

“It’s obviously a heartbreaking situation to see this happen,” Brown said.

Officials knew the identity of the shooter but were waiting to release it until they had positive confirmation. A video posted on YouTube making threats to Isla Vista residents was being investigated as evidence.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR. Cody Salfen is a licensed private investigator in California and currently owns an operates Cody S Investigations (www.CodySInvestigations.com) – A California Private Investigation and Private Detective Agency. Cody is a graduate of the University of California, Santa Barbara and prior to working as a private investigator, Cody’s experience in the criminal justice field included working for two prominent Santa Barbara criminal defense attorneys on a number of high profile criminal cases in the greater Santa Barbara Community.

Visit the official Cody S Investigations website at www.CodySInvestigations.com or www.CodyPI.com. Alternatively, to speak with a member of the Cody S Investigations private investigation staff, you can call the Cody S Investigations San Francisco private detective staff at (415) 932.9278 or (408) 313.0109. Cody S Investigations provides a wide array of private investigation services in Santa Barbara, the surrounding areas, and investigative services throughout the State of California. This includes police misconduct related investigations, civil rights related investigations, wrongful arrest/conviction investigations, criminal appeals investigations, and various other criminal law related investigative services.

DISCLAIMER: All materials, content and posts contained on this website are the intellectual property of Cody S Investigations and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or displayed without the express written permission of Cody S Investigations. Cody S Investigations does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, timeliness, or appropriateness of the information contained in any posting. Further, Cody S Investigations disclaims any responsibility for content errors, omissions, or infringing material and disclaims any responsibility associated with relying on the information provided on this website. Cody S Investigations is NOT a law firm and therefore cannot provide legal advice. As such, any information contained herein is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. It is merely an opinion.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA. For Immediate Release. By Cody Salfen. California State Senator Leland Yee has been arrested. Yee is a current candidate for California Secretary of State. Authorities announced today that Yee has been indicted by a federal grand jury on various bribery and public corruption related charges. The FBI spent the morning at Yee’s office at the State Capitol in Sacramento – searching through Yee’s files, collecting computers, and gathering evidence. Law enforcement officials have confirmed that additional searches are underway at various residences in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento and the operation consists of other arrests and searches throughout California.

CA State Senator Leland Yee has been arrested by the FBI on charges of public corruption and extortion in a "Major Operation" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation - the investigation entails additional arrests - including the arrest of infamous SF gangster "Shrimp Boy" on drug trafficking related charges

Although the details of today's arrest are still coming to light, this isn't the first time Senator Yee has raised brows with questionable conduct. Yee has a history of alleged misdeeds, but has been quick to dismiss the assertions as frivolous.

In 1992, while serving as a member of San Francisco's School Board, Yee was arrested for shoplifting in Kona, Hawaii - this stemming from an incident where Yee allegedly stole a bottle of sunscreen from a convenience store. Although Yee was arrested, the case was never prosecuted because Yee returned to California without notifying the Hawaiian authorities. Due to the fact the case involved a minor offense (petty theft), authorities did not issue a warrant and did not pursue any further action.

In 1999, Yee was contacted by San Francisco Police Department on two occasions - both contacts stemming from suspicions he was soliciting prostitutes in the "hooker-row" area of San Francisco's Mission District. Again, Yee dismissed these allegations - claiming both instances involved a case of mistaken identity and claiming he was "just on his way home."

In 2011, the California State Senate voted 37-3 in an effort to prevent a private trash company from placing a garbage dump in a San Diego suburb. Yee was amongst the three State Senators that voted in favor of allowing the private company to setup a trash dump in the backyards of citizens of the San Diego suburb. Coincidentally, in years prior to the State Senate's vote on the issue, Yee reportedly received over $8,000 in political contributions from the company that was attempting to setup the garbage dump.

As a father of four and while a member of the San Francisco School Board, sources report Yee falsified his residency information in order for his children to attend a more desirable school. Despite this apparent pattern of questionable conduct, Leland Yee has somehow managed to remain in the spotlight as a top California politician - serving in California's State Senate and launching a campaign for the position of Secretary of State of California in the upcoming election. The latest federal indictment and arrest of Leland Yee may be hard for him to shake off, as he has done in the past, and will undoubtedly impact any realistic chance of Yee succeeding in his campaign for the position of California's Secretary of State.

In the latest of Yee's brushes with the law and questionable conduct, news sources have dubbed the FBI's Wednesday arrest of Leland Yee a "major operation" - encompassing various arrests and searches throughout California. This includes the arrest of infamous San Francisco Asian street gang leader, Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow on charges relating to racketeering and drug trafficking. Aside from being arrested during the same FBI operation on Wednesday, the connection between Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow and Senator Leland Yee is largely unknown. However, Yee grew up in Chinatown -- the home-base Chow's long standing criminal enterprises.

Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow has an extensive criminal history and has connections to violent street gangs operating in and around San Francisco. In 1978, Chow was convicted for a robbery that occurred in San Francisco's Chinatown - a conviction that led to Chow receiving a prison sentence of 11-years. in 1986, almost immediately after being released from prison after serving seven years and four months of the 11-year sentence, Chow was charged with over 25 criminal violations - including attempted murder, mayhem, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and assault with a deadly weapon. Chow returned to prison, served three years, and was released from prison in 1989. Just three years later, Chow was arrested on various offenses, which related to racketeering, illegal firearm sales, prostitution, drug sales, and money laundering. Although convicted on many of these charges in 1995, Chow cut a deal with authorities and became a government informant - thereby avoiding any significant time in prison. Many believe Chow is still an active leader of one of Chinatown's most well established violent criminal street gangs.

Little is known about the details of the latest FBI operation that led to Wednesday's arrest of Leland Yee. Amongst the locations being searched by local, state, and federal law enforcement agents is the San Francisco Chinatown office of the "Gee King Tong Free Masons."

Just after announcing his candidacy for California Secretary of State in February, Sen. Yee announced, "I am committed to empowering Californians so that they can guarantee fair elections, expose special interests and prevent corruption, because it's your California." Yet, the current indictment - which includes allegation of public corruption - would seem to cut at the very essence Yee's campaign platform.

By Cody Salfen. Cody Salfen is a California licensed private investigator and currently owns an operates Cody S Investigations (www.CodySInvestigations.com) – A California Private Investigation and Private Detective Agency. Visit the official Cody S Investigations website at www.CodySInvestigations.com or www.CodyPI.com. To speak with a member of the Cody S Investigations private investigation staff, call the Cody S Investigations San Francisco private detective staff at (415) 932.9278 or (408) 313.0109. Cody S Investigations provides a wide array of private investigation services in San Francisco, the surrounding areas, and investigative services throughout the State of California. This includes misconduct related investigations, civil rights related investigations, wrongful arrest/conviction investigations, criminal appeals investigations, and various other criminal law related investigative services.

DISCLAIMER: All materials, content and posts contained on this website are the intellectual property of Cody S Investigations and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or displayed without the express written permission of Cody S Investigations. Cody S Investigations does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, timeliness, or appropriateness of the information contained in any posting. Further, Cody S Investigations disclaims any responsibility for content errors, omissions, or infringing material and disclaims any responsibility associated with relying on the information provided on this website. Cody S Investigations is NOT a law firm and therefore cannot provide legal advice. As such, any information contained herein is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. It is merely an opinion.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA. For Immediate Release. By Cody Salfen. Today, six individuals were indicted by a federal grand jury in the latest corruption scandal to rock the San Francisco Police Department. Amongst those indicted; five current SFPD officers and one former SFPD officer.

Five Current and One Former Officer Indicted by Federal Grand Jury for Various Corruption Related Charges

These indictments largely stem from San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s 2011 release of a residential hotel surveillance video. The video depicts plain-clothes SFPD officers engaging in what has been labeled misconduct in the form of officers stealing from hotel guests. The video footage is from 2010. The initial investigation consisted of the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office spearheading the probe, which DA George Gascon eventually turned over to federal authorities – citing a conflict of interest. Three of the indictments stem from the hotel incident, while the others pertain to allegations that officers engaged in various on-duty-misdeeds, including one officer allegedly stealing an iTunes gift card and thereafter making a purchase at a San Francisco Apple Store and other allegations relating to the sale of narcotics. Below, see an excerpt from the SFGate.com relating to the indictment (from Henry K. Lee and Jaxon Van Derbeken of SFGate.com / Full Text Article Here: http://bit.ly/1o9VR5L)

From the San Francisco Five veteran San Francisco police officers and a former officer faced federal corruption charges Thursday after a three-year investigation that began when the city’s public defender released surveillance videos purporting to show officers abusing and stealing from residential hotel dwellers.

The grand jury indictments allege that after the FBI and San Francisco police launched a probe in March 2011, they learned three of the officers had stolen a batch of seized marijuana two years earlier. One of those officers, Reynaldo Vargas, delivered the pot to a couple of street informants, told them to sell it and then took a split of the proceeds, federal prosecutors said.

The indictments were unsealed Thursday. They represent one of the biggest scandals to hit the police force since the Fajitagate case, which stemmed from a 2002 fight between three off-duty officers and two men over a bag of fajitas and led to allegations of a cover-up – but no criminal convictions.

Three of the officers charged this week face accusations directly related to the residential hotel searches that were brought to light by city Public Defender Jeff Adachi.

By Cody Salfen. Cody Salfen is a California licensed private investigator and currently owns an operates Cody S Investigations (www.CodySInvestigations.com) – A California Private Investigation and Private Detective Agency. Visit the official Cody S Investigations website at www.CodySInvestigations.com or www.CodyPI.com. Alternatively, to speak with a member of the Cody S Investigations private investigation staff, you can call the Cody S Investigations San Francisco private detective staff at (415) 932.9278 or (408) 313.0109. Cody S Investigations provides a wide array of private investigation services in San Francisco, the surrounding areas, and investigative services throughout the State of California. This includes police misconduct related investigations, civil rights related investigations, wrongful arrest/conviction investigations, criminal appeals investigations, and various other criminal law related investigative services.

DISCLAIMER: All materials, content and posts contained on this website are the intellectual property of Cody S Investigations and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or displayed without the express written permission of Cody S Investigations. Cody S Investigations does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, timeliness, or appropriateness of the information contained in any posting. Further, Cody S Investigations disclaims any responsibility for content errors, omissions, or infringing material and disclaims any responsibility associated with relying on the information provided on this website. Cody S Investigations is NOT a law firm and therefore cannot provide legal advice. As such, any information contained herein is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. It is merely an opinion.

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA. For Immediate Release. By Cody Salfen. Social media and cyberspace is the new battleground for investigators in the public and private sectors. Whether a workers’ compensation investigation involves locating a claimant’s Facebook posts that are inconsistent with the claimed injury or a police murder investigation involves the use of Facebook posts by suspects just after the incident, social media investigations oftentimes provide the missing link in both public and private investigations. Merely conducting a more traditional “knock and talk” investigation in which the investigator interviews a subject’s friends, neighbors, previous employers, and beyond, is not enough to obtain the “bigger picture” and thorough understanding of the subject of the investigation. A person’s online/social media/cyber presence can oftentimes shed light on a person’s personality, habits, routines, and specific involvement and locations on specific dates and times — information that cannot always be obtained through more traditional investigative methods. And, in terms of the reliability of the data — the integrity trumps that of similarly situated more traditional evidence in that the words, photos, and posts were oftentimes unilaterally posted by the party that is the subject of the investigation. Below, in an article from the San Jose Mercury News (see the full text of the article below from Robert Rogers at the San Jose Mercury News).

Cyberspace and Social Media is oftentimes the missing link that can make the case — for both the police/public investigator and the private investigator. Social media and cyberspace finds its way into nearly every modern investigation.

RICHMOND — When gunshots ring out in Richmond, familiar scenes unfold. Calls to 911 and alerts from the city’s ShotSpotter gunshot-detection system trickle in. Police cruisers scream to the scene. Detectives show up soon after.

But other detectives go somewhere else: to their computers to troll Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other social media for clues, often provided by people involved in the crime who can’t resist boasting.

“We have seen situations where someone will commit a shooting or a homicide, and they’ll immediately write something on social media,” said Matt Anderson, a Richmond gang detective. “‘Man down,’ ‘scoreboard,’ those are the kinds of phrases they’ll use, and it gives us a lot of clues about what just happened.”

As social media increasingly have become an extension of who we are and how we communicate, it has emerged as a new battleground in the age-old struggle between Bay Area criminals and the detectives who seek them. Social media use is common among neighborhood crews and street gangs, who have inadvertently supplied police and prosecutors with troves of photos and other information often used to nab and then prosecute them.

Like braggadocio on a street corner or graffiti on a wall in yesteryear, gang members have come to use Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram to tout their criminal prowess, taunt rivals, boast about crimes and even gather information about potential targets of violence.

“What we see on social media brings an insight that you normally might not otherwise see,” said Jeff Palmieri, a veteran gang investigator for the San Pablo Police Department. “You can get a view of who a person is, what they’re about, and that not only helps us but can help a jury in a courtroom. Our intelligence information has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 10 years.”

Online postings can help prosecutors establish a level of intent, premeditation, motive and gang affiliation, said Derek Butts, a Contra Costa deputy district attorney.

By Cody Salfen. Cody Salfen is a California licensed private investigator and currently owns an operates Cody S Investigations (www.CodySInvestigations.com) – A California Private Investigation and Private Detective Agency. Visit the official Cody S Investigations website at www.CodySInvestigations.com or www.CodyPI.com. Alternatively, to speak with a member of the Cody S Investigations private investigation staff, you can call the Cody S Investigations San Francisco private detective staff at 415.932.9278 or 408.313.0109. Cody S Investigations provides a wide array of private investigation services in San Francisco, the surrounding areas, and investigative services throughout the State of California. Cody S Investigations is an expert in providing social media investigative services and cyber investigation services. Many of our associate investigators are former/retired forensic computer and cyber investigators from a number of law enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. Cody Salfen is a member of the California Association of Licensed Investigators, the Professional Investigators Association of California, the California Defense Investigators Association, the National Council of Investigation and Security Services, and the World Association of Detectives. In addition, Cody founded and operates Cody S & Associates, Inc. (www.CSI-Legal-Services.com) a security training, firearms training, security consulting, and CA Dept. of Justice and FBI approved Live Scan Fingerprinting Services.

DISCLAIMER: All materials, content and posts contained on this website are the intellectual property of Cody S Investigations and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or displayed without the express written permission of Cody S Investigations. Cody S Investigations does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, timeliness, or appropriateness of the information contained in any posting. Further, Cody S Investigations disclaims any responsibility for content errors, omissions, or infringing material and disclaims any responsibility associated with relying on the information provided on this website. Cody S Investigations is NOT a law firm and therefore cannot provide legal advice. As such, any information contained herein is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. It is merely an opinion.

SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA. For Immediate Release. By Cody Salfen. As reported by NBC Bay Area, yesterday at approximately 4:00pm, 22-year-old Mesuit Guler allegedly took his two-week-old-infant-child from a Helen Avenue residence in Sunnyvale after Guler was involved an argument with the baby’s mother. A statewide Amber Alert has been activated and police are seeking any and all information as to the whereabouts of the infant and/or Mesuit Guler. According to NBC Bay Area, San Diego police have reported they spotted Guler’s GMC Envoy on at least two occasions within the City of San Diego. For more information, please see the full text of the article from NBC Bay Area (below).

An Amber Alert was issued after a 22-year-old father, Mesuit Guler, allegedly took his newborn, Henry Guler-Romero, after a fight with the baby’s mother in the 900 block of Helen Avenue around 4 p.m. Tuesday, according to the CHP. Police said the father’s SUV was spotted in San Diego. Bob Redell reports.

San Diego police on Wednesday told NBC Bay Area that they spotted a suspects tan GMC Envoy twice in their city, after a newborn baby boy was taken from a Sunnyvale apartment complex, prompting an Amber Alert. On Wednesday morning, San Diego police confirmed the suspect’s cell phone signal was detected near Interstate 805 and Balboa Avenue around 11:55 p.m. Tuesday.And the CHP received a report just after 2 a.m. on Wednesday that an SUV with the same license plate number was spotted Tuesday between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. in the Hillcrest area, which is about three miles from downtown San Diego.

The 22-year-old father, Mesuit Guler, allegedly took his newborn, Henry Guler-Romero, after a fight with the babys mother in the 900 block of Helen Avenue around 4 p.m. Tuesday, according to California Highway Patrol Officer Peter Van Eckert.

The baby is anywhere between two weeks and one-month-old.Guler told the babys mother he was leaving the state with Henry. And police say Guler has made previous threats to harm himself and Henry.Sunnyvale police didnt issue an Amber Alert until at least 1 a.m., and notification about the boy didnt appear on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children until 2 a.m. At 7 a.m. on Wednesday, the CHP issued photographs of the van, baby and father, who is described as six feet tall and weighing 120 pounds. He is also of Turkish descent.

By Cody Salfen. Cody Salfen is a licensed private investigator in California and currently owns an operates Cody S Investigations (www.CodySInvestigations.com) – A Private Investigation and Private Detective Agency serving clients throughout Northern California and Southern California. Visit the official Cody S Investigations website at www.CodySInvestigations.com or www.CodyPI.com. To speak with a member of the Cody S Investigations private investigation staff, call the Cody S Investigations private detective staff at 415.932.9278 or 408.313.0109. Cody S Investigations provides a wide array of private investigation services in San Francisco, the surrounding areas, and investigative services throughout the State of California.

DISCLAIMER: All materials, content and posts contained on this website are the intellectual property of Cody S Investigations and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or displayed without the express written permission of Cody S Investigations. Cody S Investigations does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, timeliness, or appropriateness of the information contained in any posting. Further, Cody S Investigations disclaims any responsibility for content errors, omissions, or infringing material and disclaims any responsibility associated with relying on the information provided on this website. Cody S Investigations is NOT a law firm and therefore cannot provide legal advice. As such, any information contained herein is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. It is merely an opinion.